CROW and CHECC

[Peter Burgess]

I suggest also that those who wish to see change will consider themselves part of a campaign, and those who don't, well, feel like they have been "ambushed" to some extent. The main proponents, I venture to suggest, have been planning this referendum for some time. The rest of us have only known about it for a week or so. Think about it. And it's not the only incident of this kind over the past year.

 

[Stu]

How to vote? You don't need a two-sided balanced debate to work out how to vote. Ask yourself :

"Do I value my convenience to visit whatever caves I want when I want to, more than I value the caves themselves?"

The answer to that question is your vote in the referendum. No student debate required, just a modicum of inspection of one's personal motivations.

The presumption being that the two are mutually exclusive. Which in my case they aren't.

 

[Peter Burgess]

They are not, but it could simply be a question of which of the two is more important.

 

[bograt]

Ahh, so the 'anti lobby' comes down to you and Bottlebank --- interesting---,

AKA Bollocks. I'm sure that if your memory wasn't fading with age you'd recall reading 'anti' posts from other people on here.

Interesting that Grahams responses to my last two posts have started with the comments 'Utter Tripe and AKA Bollocks', without any further substantiation of these opinions, really good lobbying for the 'no' vote, good debating Graham 

 

[graham]

Ahh, so the 'anti lobby' comes down to you and Bottlebank --- interesting---,

AKA Bollocks. I'm sure that if your memory wasn't fading with age you'd recall reading 'anti' posts from other people on here.

Interesting that Grahams responses to my last two posts have started with the comments 'Utter Tripe and AKA Bollocks', without any further substantiation of these opinions, really good lobbying for the 'no' vote, good debating Graham 

But, given your patently incorrect statements, such as the one about BCA constitutional amendments not requiring a postal ballot, about the right level for you, I deem.

 

[Ian Adams]

I suggest also that those who wish to see change will consider themselves part of a campaign, and those who don't, well, feel like they have been "ambushed"

I see it a different way; I see that the Pro-CroW have been hoodwinked for years ? into believing something that appears not now to be true because the (then) presiding BCA officer(s) did not want ?Pro-CRoW? (specifically, David Judson). It is not the ?anti?s? who have been ambushed, more like the ?anti?s? who have been ?found out?.

Of course, that?s just my opinion and how I see.

to some extent. The main proponents, I venture to suggest, have been planning this referendum for some time.

You will have to ask the BCA executive about that ? first I knew about it was after the recent meeting. I would expect that would be true of the very vast majority on both sides (my opinion again).

Ian

 

[Peter Burgess]

Ian - I have never had anything to hide, have had nothing to do with how the status quo was established, so there was nothing to "find out" regarding me personally. Yet I am not happy with what is being proposed and how it has been put to cavers in general. So I, personally, have not been "found out". However, I do get the distinct impression that those making decisions to spend our money on this referendum are not taking a particularly neutral stance.

 

[bazdog]

Ian - I have never had anything to hide, have had nothing to do with how the status quo was established, so there was nothing to "find out" regarding me personally. Yet I am not happy with what is being proposed and how it has been put to cavers in general. So I, personally, have not been "found out". However, I do get the distinct impression that those making decisions to spend our money on this referendum are not taking a particularly neutral stance.

what can be more neutral than asking everybody what they think and listening to the majority rather than one or two people dictating policy?

 

[Ian Adams]

Ian - I have never had anything to hide, have had nothing to do with how the status quo was established, so there was nothing to "find out" regarding me personally.

Sorry Peter, I wasn't referring to you and I didn't consider you to be part of the BCA executive that created the policy.

I apologise for the confusion, my wording was mis-leading.

Ian

 

[Peter Burgess]

It's Ok, I was only pushing the point home that it's more than just people involved in actively maintaining the status quo that are not happy. Ordinary cavers with nothing to hide are equally unhappy.

 

[cap n chris]

Cap'n Chris mentioned earlier, with 'absolute certainty', 'when offered with a choice of "Yes, or No", approximately two-thirds of people vote Yes for no ostensible reason other than that people naturally are inclined to say yes when asked?'

Well that really does depend on what the question is otherwise it suggests that 2/3 of cavers will be voting 'yes', not based on research, or reasoned debate, or thinking through the consequences, but because they are a bit thick.

Two-thirds so far, but it's early days yet. Very interesting nonetheless.

http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17217.0;viewresults

 

[Pegasus]

Hellie should definitely go ahead with the event and if there are no offers to speak on behalf of the 'no' camp then she can simply tell the 100's of students who will probably be there that, despite numerous requests for somebody to offer the opposing view, they were both otherwise engaged.

Mark

'both otherwise engaged' - oh for a like button, so funny 

 

[hell little caver]

still hoping..... for someone...

Hellie

 

[cavermark]

If nobody comes forward to put a case for the "no" vote, then why not just have a couple of speakers who can do a talk summarising the likely pros and cons of either outcome.

I am sure there are plenty of cavers who are not particularly partisan and are intelligent enough to give an objective coverage of the subject - perhaps the likes of graham could send someone some bullet points on their view of things.

Whilst all the various arguments have been covered on UKC it would be a near impossible (and massively depressing) task for anyone to pull them all together from the reams of threads, which are half full of vitriol and circular arguments.

The students (and quite a lot of other cavers I expect) would benefit from a clear summary of the issue. If it was filmed and posted here then people from either camp could add points on a new thread that they don't feel were adequately covered - hopefully without character assassinations of the people who made an effort to organise and do the talks.

 

[Alex]

Is this information not in the last 2 editions of descent. In-fact in the most recent edition there is a summary of pro's and con's though I personally don't agree with all of them.

 

[cavermark]

Not all cavers read Descent (even though they should of course!). A good speaker can get the information across in a more accessible way too (excuse the pun).

 

[bograt]

Could do with an update this  Hellie  :-\

 

[NOZ]

We are now two weeks from CHECC. If nobody has come forward to present the NO side by now, I am quite happy to do so. I have no strong feelings either way, as most of my caving is done abroad. If a NO person would like to supply me with the pertinent arguments, I am sure that I can research and present them. I am not going to trawl through the myriad of UK caving threads.

 

[cavermark]

I think NOZ would be a good person to do this if necessary

 

[badger]

funny how many topics get side tracked, this one from a simple request for a pro speaker and a no speaker,
also the various assumptions/views from various people on/off topic
personally think caver mark? summed it up if Pro/No campaign cant provide two speakers so they can answer Q & A, then a speaker who can present the reasons for/reasons against so at least the CHECC attendee's can make to the best of the information provided an informed view.

to go off topic the view that CROW act includes caving is only an opinion so far from a QC, it is not the view as yet from DEFRA
to say this come unexpected, maybe it has arrived sooner than expected but the fact this issue has been discussed for so long on here and no doubt by individuals would say it was only time we got to where we are now.
and as to voting and % whether this vote or General Election why is it only 1/3rd (approx.) decide to vote, apathy, lack of understanding, forget, who knows but like someone says it is how democracy works in the UK, like it or not,
I wonder if instead of a yes/no vote it should include another box undecided,